Not quite deprecation I suppose, but fight club ;) (we know how this one
ends)


On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, nothing saying we can't support two formats and let the likely
> one die appropriately.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I suppose - but for 3.0 we are a lock for xml, and we are probably going
> to
> > support it for a while? or 4.0? ;)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd say we should hold off on this particular work. The schema is
> >> changing pretty rapidly and this would just fall out of sync. That and
> >> there is pretty strong argument brewing to move to JSON.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Carlos Santana <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Marcel Kinard <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Would it make sense to have an xsd (XML schema) file for plugin.xml
> and
> >> >> config.xml, so that folks could programatically validate their xml
> files
> >> >> against the schema with a tool like xmllint?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd be happy to do that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Carlos Santana
> >> > <[email protected]>
> >>
>

Reply via email to